Running with hares and hunting with hounds

Gavin Gulia's attempt (June 1) at trying to detect a rebellion within the Nationalist ranks was really pathetic. After all, a Bill covering several measures contained in numerous clauses is bound to give rise to different points of view. We always preach that Parliament should be the forum where different views are aired; then, the moment someone expresses a view which is personally his, the opposition wrings its hands making political capital out of sincere expression of an opinion.

What was even more unfair was that Dr Gulia failed to mention that an opposition MP stated, in the same debate, that the only fault he could find in the government's proposal of a three-month moratorium on the granting of bail to recidivists in serious case was that the measure was too mild!

Dr Gulia threw the charge at me that I am being "populist". Had I requested the return of the death penalty, I could have understood the accusation, but to describe as populist a measure, fully supported by the Police Force, indeed suggested by them, to incarcerate for three months repeated offenders of serious violent crime is indeed incomprehensible. And it is even more so when one considers that the moratorium is not absolute and the court still enjoys discretion to grant bail even within the three-month period for grave reasons.

But Dr Gulia wants to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He cried foul when I proposed in 1999 to remove the penalty of mandatory imprisonment in importation of drugs for one's known personal use, adopting the most conservative approach to beef up Labour's feeble attempt at putting forward "a law and order image". He and his colleague Josè Herrera actually voted against such law which today they belatedly admit was a just measure. Now that we are making it more difficult for repeated offenders to be released immediately in the community, he hypocritically and mistakenly seeks cover under the human rights umbrella.

He quotes judgments which have declared as unconstitutional a total ban on the granting of bail, not a restricted or conditional one. The cases mentioned by him refer to laws such as the pre-1989 Criminal Code provisions which prohibited in an absolute manner and without review the granting of bail in murder cases. The present proposal is different. It is only applicable to recidivists, it is limited in time and is anything but absolute.

Dr Gulia tries to sow division between the government and the Bench of magistrates. The charge that the government, through Bill 69, is showing distrust in magistrates is false, in the same way as it would be false for me to state that Labour's law in the 1980s - imposing a 20-day absolute moratorium on the granting of bail in drug trafficking cases - was an expression of distrust in our magistrates, or that Labour's adamant refusal in allowing magistrates to impose the proper punishment in drug importation for one's own use, rather than imposing mandatory imprisonment, was a sign of no confidence in the courts of inferior jurisdiction.

I found it amusing that Dr Gulia did not even dare state that the government's proposal to abolish the mandatory requirement of corroboration in an accomplice's evidence breached human rights law. He knows very well it is not and that practically all European countries accept the evidence of a credible witness even if an accomplice. But even this proposal is in Labour's black book. The government will go ahead with its proposal, even though, as proposed in the Bill, the presiding judge in a trial by jury will have to advise the jury to cautiously weigh any such evidence. I have failed to understand why Labour has described this proposal, so necessary in breaking the solidarity between crime perpetrators, as "fascist", to be removed should Labour be elected to government.

The Justice and Home Affairs Ministry embarked on several projects in the past years which have strengthened human rights law in Malta: the introduction of judicial warrants for police arrests and searches, the setting up of a Police Complaints Board, the liberalisation of our press laws, the launching of codes of practice for police interrogation, the introduction of prison leave and drug rehabilitation programmes for prisoners, the enactment of a new liberal Probation Act, radical changes in our succession law, doing away with anachronisms and injustices. But, above all, it has strengthened the previously forgotten legal position of crime victims. In 2002 they were allowed to remain present in the court room during criminal proceedings against the accused, a particularly important change in view of the fact that prior to such date they were considered only as police witnesses to withdraw from court the moment they finish giving evidence. Now, with Bill 69, they will soon participate in a victims compensation scheme, may be awarded damages during criminal proceedings themselves, shall have an easier right to reclaim retrieved stolen property, and young crime victims under the age of 16 shall only give evidence once in the trial through audio visual means.

The Bill will also increase credibility in the justice system in Malta by being firm with repeated offenders; others on the opposition benches would like the government to let sleeping dogs lie. We do not intend to do so.

Dr Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Justice and Home Affairs.